Out of curiosity, why does metal archives not recognize it as a genre of music and just considers it brutal death? It's obviously different. For example, compare devourment, vulvectomy, and clitoridus invaginatus with nile, suffocation, and orgin.... they sound nothing alike. They share a few properties but are very different. I honestly find this more odd than when metal archives denied deathcore as being a genre.

Very, very few and minor qualities to validate a differentiation.

Definitely not. Brutal death is based upon technicality and speed. Slam death is based upon groove and breakdowns with bursts of speed. Also, slam death is noted for almost always mixing the drums too loud and also with primarily gutteral gurgles whether inward or outward. Brutal death is more into a rather even mix with bassy guitars and and typically standard growls, grunts, and gutterals.

Nah, sorry. We see it differently.

Ok, it's your site but, out of curiosity, can you back up the idea that slam isn't a real genre?

Because as I just mentioned, the differences are too few and too minor to validate the listing of it as a genre, or subgenre. You may think of it as a style of death metal, just as brutal death metal is a style of death metal.

ok, well, you say that the differences were very minor and i pointed out valid statements and facts about slam that show major yet, you don't seem to be open to any opinion on this. whatever, but tbh, it seems more like you won't accept it as a genre because you'd rather stick to you being 100% correct rather than slightly wavering and admitting something that is a genre is a genre. IMO, the differences between slam death metal to brutal death metal is as extreme as black metal to industrial black metal or death metal to avant-garde death metal... but whatever

No, seriously, the differences are far from minor; you cannot say Devourment is anything similar to Kronos for instance. As the viewer from nihil guy said, you have the gore, mainly US bree'n'blast on one side, and solid, "brutal" death metal on the other and they are quite different. But I'm just saying, I'm not arguing.
I've learnt that arguing is never really worth it here anyway.

viewer is totally correct.
if you can consider deathcore a genre,
i dont see a problem with accepting slamming death metal as one.

plus the differences are very far from minor.

Wah wah wah...who the fuck cares? Brutal death metal is brutal death metal, too much categorizing will be the death of this site.

Since the point of this site is to be encyclopedic, ignoring a sub-genre of DM goes against the purpose of the intent of this site.

But, I'm just saying, not arguing it.

----------------
Now playing: Woods of Ypres - Outro: The End of August
via FoxyTunes

Ah, yes...but over-complicating things is needless. Brutal death metal should suffice.

it's not like we're trying to categorize EVERY different kind of music (such as all of the ridiculous different kinds of core) but slam does have some very different and unique elements that are different from brutal death

I guess the real reason is that we don't consider slam death a proper established standalone sub-genre.

Genre descriptions aren't supposed to portray every stylistic variance. See, Slowly We Rot, Blessed Are the Sick, Nespithe, Left Hand Path, etc. all sound different from each other yet they are all labeled simply "death metal".

hmmm... good point but then again those are a specific culture or country's spin on that genre. alot swedish DM models itself around entombed, alot of american DM models itself around morbid angel (slowly we rot has some very similar properties also), and if i'm correct, nespithe is more along the lines of Tech Death but, my point was that bands from certain countries tend to carry that country's signature sound and it would be a dumb idea to label it "swedish death" "american death" ect. yet, slam is a unique genre with a signature sound that is followed by slam bands all over the world

Well, granted it should, so long as the sound of this supposed "slam" death doesn't constitute the need for distinction, MMisantropo put it well here:

Which makes sense. But, if it can be proven as having a decent distinction, then that should, as the logic would go, be adopted here.

cheers,
--N

----------------
Now playing: Woods of Ypres - Crossing the 45th Parallel
via FoxyTunes

for those who aren't familiar with slam...

devourment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgmW5RAHcEc

clitoridus invaginatus...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_C7E9KJ9Ig

as you can tell, it's known for extreme gutterals, very loud drums in the mix, breakdowns, and it focuses everything on groove... very different from brutal death

It is still death metal, that is all that matters. It was already explained, so please stop trying.

You can label it as you wish for your personal/private needs, but our stance will not change.

Do you people just completely miss my point, or what? viewer_from_nihil, AurvandiL and GutturalEmesis.

Who is contesting here that "slam" death metal doesn't sound different from melodic death metal or brutal death metal? Not a single person.

What I am saying is that the differences are too few and too minor to valiate itself as a distinct sub-genre. It already belongs to a subgenre, it's death metal. As I'v mentioned, it is simply a style of death metal. Do you think we should give each and every iteration of death metal its own seperate classification? That is stupid and counter intuitive. Try to understand how an encyclopaedia works.